[derelict]

I am a teacher so I can get an educators discount so I am looking at getting software that is capable of doing HDR. With the discount, Aperature is slightly more expensive than Lightroom.


So, which is better? Aperature or Lightroom? They both do RAW and have plugins for HDR. I have to pay for the HDR plugin for Lightroom (or so it seems) whereas I can download Hydra for Aperature for free. Plus, Im using a Mac so I can use Aperature easily.

[magkelly]

If you are already on a Mac I'd say Aperture. It's a nice program. In fact I like it better than LR, Adobe geek that I am. I wish they'd port it to PC. I might just dump LR completely for it, seriously....

[cats_five]

Lightroom & Photoshop are different tools for different jobs. Lots of information on the Internet if you Google 'lightroom vs photoshop'. You can also check 'lightroom vs aperture' and 'aperture vs photoshop'. Do make sure you read new articles comparing up-to-date versions of the programs through.

[Ahab]

Aperature, hands down. You can still get it at the App store for $75.

[derelict]

Im just looking to do the slightly more advanced than basic stuff I can do through iPhoto. Aperture 3 is about $80 more but will do HDR whereas Lightroom can only do it with a plugin that costs about the same as the difference. So, in reality, theyre about the same overall. I just downloaded the Aperture 3 free trial and am really liking it. The Hydra HDR plugin works really well too.

[rormeister]

I've been down your path. If you have educational access to Adobe Products, I cannot recommend CS5(.5) high enough. Sure, it isn't a dedicated HDR tool, but you've got that basically built into the camera. Where PS CS5 shines is the thousands of other bits you probably think you don't need. You'll be wrong. I use practically every tool they have, if just for experimenting. There is just so very much you can to in PP with it that it is worth every penny.

[derelict]

Problem with CS5, even with the discount, is thats its north of $400 whereas Aperture with HDR plug in is $170 and Lightroom with Photomatics comes out to $200 (both $99, respectively). Im sure that I would find a reason to use all of the options and adjustments in CS5 but I just cannot justify the cost.

[George Lama]

Just curious - Have you tried downloading the Adobe Lightroom demo to compare for yourself? There is so much to LR (and I'm sure Aperture) that you really should take them for a spin, see which is best suited for your needs.

Neither is one dimensional or fully comparable, so you need to look for your absolute must-have features.

You might also want to consider what you're going to use for photo editing and how well it integrates with that program.

[derelict]

Well I went with LR3 and am looking at Photomatix to do the HDR processing with. I bailed on Aperture because it ran so incredibly clunky. I upgraded my OS software to 10.6.3 and Aperture started running like pure crap. Libraries took forever to load and editing was incredibly laggy. No other program does it, including LR3. iPhoto ran like it always has. I just couldnt wait anymore. The controls are better laid out in Aperture but LR3 runs so much nicer.



On a different not, how come when shooting RAW, the space on my SD card is used up so much quicker? Is a RAW file really that much bigger? Im talking 25% bigger.

[Thesorus]

On a different not, how come when shooting RAW, the space on my SD card is used up so much quicker? Is a RAW file really that much bigger? Im talking 25% bigger.

Yes, RAW files are what they say they are, raw data from the image.

[derelict]

Does it double save like, I think, Nikons do where its RAW and another (NEF?) of the same image?

[hcarvalhoalves]

I find Lightroom's interface and workflow awful. Aperture is miles better.

Be warned though: without at least 4GB RAM, you won't run Aperture for editing RAWs. I tried using with a 2GB MacBook and couldn't do almost any processing before it started swapping to disk and just bogging the system down. Installed another 2GB memory bank and it now runs flawlessly, every adjustment is made instantaneously because the entire data fits on RAM. So just make sure you have enough RAM and go for it.

[George Lama]

Out of the camera, Raw will definitely be larger than JPG files. And, PEF files will be larger than DNG files (by 1-2 Megs).

It's not because it's double-saving. It's simply more data, unprocessed, from the sensor to the card.

As far as HCarvalhoalves comment about Aperture and memory, I can tell you the same would apply for LR. The larger the catalog, the heavier the editing you do within LR, the more memory you should have.

It also helps if you locate your Raw cache onto a secondary internal or eSATA drive.